There are approximately 7.2 billion people in the world. There are also approximately 1.5 billion cell phones and smart phones. For many people, instant-access high-speed real-time connectivity is the norm. For billions of other people, once a day or even once a week email, social media interaction, or other “connectivity” would be revolutionary. Devices (e.g., smart phones, tablets, laptops, computers, game systems) that are able to connect to the Internet seem to be nearly ubiquitous. Whether walking the streets of New York City, hiking in the remote high Andes, trekking to parts unknown in Outer Mongolia, sitting in a coffee shop in Seattle, or taking a restful weekend in Amish country in Ohio, there is likely to be a connection enabled device nearby (e.g., in your hand). While devices are nearly ubiquitous, connectivity is not. Certainly connectivity continues to reach deeper into even the farthest corners of the world, but there are still gaps in coverage. Popular television commercials in the United States compare coverage maps for various carriers, with all the coverage maps showing significant gaps. In addition to actual gaps, where there is simply no connectivity infrastructure, gaps may be practical or economic, where connectivity is too expensive, too slow, or too insecure to be practically or economically useful.
Since devices are nearly everywhere, and since connectivity is not yet everywhere, devices that are used to communicating frequently with the Internet may be forced to function at a reduced level when connectivity is not available. While this reduced functionality may be inconvenient at times, it may be economically or even physically dangerous at others. For example, not being able to watch the most recent version of a television show may be inconvenient while not being able to receive the most recent update to a map or to receive a weather forecast may be physically dangerous. Not being able to receive the most recent security update or encryption update may be economically dangerous. Additionally, regardless of whether the reduced capability is dangerous or just annoying, the loss of connectivity reduces the utility of mobile devices.
Gaps in connectivity may be actual or may be economic or practical. An actual gap exists when there is simply no connection. The lack of connection may be temporary (e.g., network down, network overloaded, electrical blackout) or may be more systemic (e.g., lack of infrastructure). An economic or practical gap may exist even when an actual connection exists. For example, a low-speed yet high-cost connection may be available for a device. The user of the device may not want to spend an unjustifiable amount of time and money to use the low-speed high-cost connection to download a large file. However, the user of the device may be willing to spend a little time and a little money to order from a catalog of available content or to send/receive a critical message. The catalog of available content from which a user may order may even have been distributed in paper form like the old-time catalogues from department stores. In this case, delivery of digital content through an existing though impractical link may not be desired, even if an order can be placed through the impractical link.